EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

Post by bitwize » Tue, May 16, 2023, 2:37 AM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #193

tedivm wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She was 17, and it happened in Florida where the age of consent was 18 at the time. So it really doesn't matter how "willingly" she may have presented herself. Also, come on, I'm 37 and I wouldn't have sex with a teenager. Even beyond legality (which isn't really an issue, the dude is dead) there are the ethical considerations. This dude was sketchy and RMS is sketchy for defending him.

> She was 17, and it happened in Florida where the age of consent was 18 at the time. So it really doesn't matter how "willingly" she may have presented herself. Stallman's whole point is that Epstein almost certainly concealed these facts from his associates. Stallman does not in any way argue that these women's and girls aren't victims, only that Minsky was likely unaware of this. I don't see anything sketchy about…

Post by gonzo » Tue, May 16, 2023, 2:49 AM UTC

pyuser583 wrote: post #148

mardifoufs wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, I'm not implying that he himself is a pedophile. I also get that he might have changed his mind, but Stallman is also not known to actually change his mind very often. I'm not a mind reader and it's just an impression that I've gotten in the way he apologized. But in any case my point was mostly that he actually made pretty controversial statements at some point, and it's a bit disingenuous to insinuate…

I think part of the controversy is that Stallman is known for being an uncompromising absolutist on open-source. So people assume he has the same attitude towards his terrible ideas. Stallman’s ideas on open source are well thought out, and vigorously defended for decades. His terrible ideas are neither well thought out, nor extensively defended.

Post by rayiner » Tue, May 16, 2023, 2:54 AM UTC

myshpa wrote: post #145

"The original Remove Richard Stallman post contained leaked communications from a private mailing list. In it, the author quotes an email from Stallman where he explains that Marvin Minsky likely wouldn’t have known that the woman on Jeffrey Epstein’s island was coerced: …the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had…

Post by handoflixue » Tue, May 16, 2023, 3:11 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #194

asdfman123 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re right, that is a misquote. But what he actually wrote honestly wasn’t that much better. The problem with a lot of these sorts things is intentionally making yourself blind to the emotional impact, pretending not to know, when some part of you does understand what you’re doing. It’s all just plausible deniability. We get it quite clearly, we don’t need it explained to us. You might say this is tone policing but…

> You’re right, that is a misquote. But what he actually wrote honestly wasn’t that much better Agree. Broadly speaking, if someone is accused of a moral crime about which you have no privileged information, publicly hypothesizing about how they might be innocent is tantamount to a defence. It's a limit on free speech. And in private circles, it could be debated responsibly. But when stated publicly, the argument's c…

Post by moralestapia » Tue, May 16, 2023, 3:14 AM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #100

marcodiego wrote: post #32

Bill Gates had bonds with Epstein. His multi decade marriage fell after the fact became public. He didn't get 1% the flak that Stallman had for commenting about a word to describe Marvin Minsky.

Bill Gates didn't say much about it, except he didn't know about any of the "bad stuff" and was deceived. Stallman said a bunch of to try to either claim that the victims weren't victims. Or to try to downplay what happened. Those are huge differences.